A Review of Rock Waterman’s “Why I’m Abandoning Polygamy”

Recently I was asked to respond to a Saturday June 26, 2010 blog post the entitled: “Why I’m Abandoning Polygamy”by Alan Rock Waterman. Having been inundated with anti-Mormon, anti-polygamy, anti-Joseph Smith emails, messages, and blog posts since the publication of my 3 volume JOSEPH SMITH’S POLYGAMY: HISTORY AND THEOLOGY in February of this year (2013 – Greg Kofford Books), I figured it would be another “Joseph was a womanizer” report.

To my surprise I found that Mr. Waterman composed a witty and entertaining piece that was an enjoyable read. Since it was written long before my books were published and since we both agree that Joseph Smith was not what antagonists like Fawn Brodies have portrayed him to be (libido driven libertine), I will simply offer some evidences that counter what our aged friends, Richard and Pamela Price, have been promoting for decades. Hopefully, the scholar in Mr. Waterman will permit him to see that the RLDS Fundamentalist position is problematic and is contradicted by literally hundreds of manuscript evidences.

First, let me say that the Prices are very good investigators. They have produced some of the best research available anywhere on a few polygamy-related topics. The unfortunate problem is how they interpret the documents and how readily they dismiss and ignore other equally valid manuscripts that contradict their conclusions. Mr. Waterman initially seems to have embraced their view. My 3 volumes profess to contain “every known document dealing with Joseph Smith’s polygamy,” either transcribed or referenced. Hence, the position of Richard and Pamela Price is countered by a plethora of documentation and it’s all there in my volumes.

Richard and Pamela Price believe that through the Cochranite connection, plural marriage entered the Church:

Latter-day Saint missionaries arrived in southern Maine in 1832, only three years after Jacob Cochran moved form Maine to New York State. The Church missionaries visited the Cochranite communities, stayed in their homes, taught them the gospel, baptized some, and urged them to gather to Zion. As a result, many of his followers joined the Church and moved to Kirtland and Nauvoo. Some took their polygamous beliefs with them… “On August 21, 1835, nine of the Twelve [apostles] met in conference at Saco, Maine.” With nine of the twelve apostles making their appearance in Saco, there is no doubt that each one of them became well acquainted with the doctrines of Cochranism, for at that time it was a popular secular and religious news topic.

Orson Hyde encountered them on October 11, 1832:

“Went down to Gunkits about 3 miles and again preached to a congregation of Cochranites who gave liberty; told them again to repent and go up to Zion, and we lifted our cry in the Spirit, and I hope some of them will go; but they had a wonderful lustful spirit, because they believe in a “Plurality of wives” which they call spiritual wives, knowing them not after the flesh but after the spirit, but by the appearance they know one another after the flesh.”

Orson Hyde

Jacob Cochran, the group’s founder was prosecuted in 1819 for adultery. The National Intelligencer reported on November 19th: “Jacob Cochrane, the notorious preacher and leader of a new party of religious zealots in this country, has been sentenced by the Supreme Court now sitting at Alfred, to 13 day solitary imprisonment, and four years hard labor in the state’s prison, for the crime of adultery… On the other three indictments, for lewdness, fornication, and adultery, he has not yet been tried.”

The interpretation that polygamy entered the Church in the 1830s through a Cochran connection is problematic because there is no contemporary evidence or even late recollections to support it. It appears that if polygamy was mentioned in Kirtland meetings, Church members undoubtedly would have condemned the practice and mentioned it in the journals and letters. The local press would have had a heyday exploiting such a controversial practice. Writers often point to the denials of polygamy from this period as evidence, but at that time, the Church was denying a lot of allegations. Oliver Cowdery wrote in the Messenger and Advocate in 1836: “It would be a Herculean task to point out the innumerable falsehoods and misrepresentations, sent out detrimental to this society. The tales of those days in which Witches were burnt, and the ridiculous inconsistencies of those who directed the building of the funeral pyre, could be no more absurd than the every-day tales, relative to the conduct and professions of the ‘Mormons.’” Proponents of Kirtland polygamy never quote the rumormongers because no such rumors have been found in private or published documents. Only the denials which they have distilled from longer lists of things Church leaders then denied are mentioned.

It is true that Joseph Smith denied “polygamy” and also “spiritual wifery” in Nauvoo because these were very different from “celestial marriage” in Joseph Smith’s teachings. It was a play on words – verbal gymnastics – and not very effective. People today are quick to condemn Joseph for the denials and we can’t blame them, but if we put ourselves in Joseph’s shoes, it is easy to see how he chose words that weren’t blatant lying, but were still deceiving.

The idea that “They [the Cochranites] had simply been folded into Mormonish, selling their farms and shops and moving to Kirtland and eventually Nauvoo, bringing their polygamous families and teachings with them” is a great storyline without any supportive evidence, contemporaneous or late. Researchers who embrace this view are encouraged to support it with historical documentation.

William Clayton

The overall problem documenting Joseph Smith’s plural marriages stems from the fact that there are only two known contemporaneous documents dealing with the subject, the Revelation on Celestial and Plural Marriage (now LDS D&C 132) and a few entries in the journal of William Clayton. Joseph dictated two other documents in conjunction with the expansion of polygamy, but neither actually mentions plural marriage. The first is a letter from Joseph to Nancy Rigdon written in the spring of 1842 and first published by John C. Bennett on August 19, 1842, and the second is a letter Joseph Smith received on behalf of Newel K. Whitney on July 27, 1842, which contradicts Waterman’s statement that “no one had ever heard of it during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.” It is true that beyond these documents, no firsthand accounts from Joseph Smith are available.

The unfortunate reality is that every researcher must rely on late recollections if they seek to document the existence of Nauvoo polygamy. Authors who declare such sources to be unreliable, can then spin their story any direction they want, because they are freed from the constraints of the historical evidences. But their creations will be historical fiction.

When consulting the historical record, there are literally hundreds of late reminiscences recalling Joseph’s teachings and their own involvement. They tell a very similar story. I have accumulated numerous evidences to corroborate each of his 35 plural wives. (See http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSWives/JSWivesList02.html)

The payload of historical documentation is found in three collections. First, dozens of testimonials were gathered into four notebooks by Apostle Joseph F. Smith in 1869-1870:

Name

Date

1869

Book

Notes

1

page

4

page

Joseph B. Noble

June 26

3

1

Performed sealing of Joseph Smith to Louisa Beaman on April 5, 1841.

unfinished affidavit, no name

3

Unsigned, unfinished, crossed out. Dated June 6, 1869.

Zina D. Huntington Young

May 18

5

5

Sealed to Joseph Smith on October 27, 1841.

Presendia Huntington Buell Kimball

May 1

7

7

Sealed to Joseph Smith on December 11, 1841.

Ruth Vose Sayers

May 1

9

9

Sealed to Joseph Smith on February 1843.

Emily D. Partridge Young

May 1

11

11

Sealed to Joseph Smith on March 4, 1843, by Heber C. Kimball.

Emily D. Partridge Young

May 1

13

13

Sealed to Joseph Smith on May 11, 1843, by James Adams.

Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde

May 1

15

15

Sealed to Joseph Smith on May 1843.

Rhoda Richards

May 1

17

17

Sealed to Joseph Smith on June 12, 1843.

Dimick B. Huntington

May 1

19

19

Officiated at Zina’s and Presendia’s sealings.

Fanny M. Huntington

May 1

21

21

Witnessed Zina’s and Presendia’s sealings.

Malissa Lott Willes

May 20

23

23

Sealed to Joseph Smith on September 20, 1843.

Eliza R. Snow

June 7

25

25

Sealed to Joseph Smith on June 29, 1842.

David Fullmer

June 15

27-28

27-28

Celestial marriage revelation and Nauvoo High Council.

Lovinia Smith Walker

June 16

30

30

Certificate – Emma approved of plural marriage.

Desdemona Fullmer

June 17

32

32

Sealed to Joseph Smith in July, 1843.

Mercy R. Thompson

June 19

34

34

Sealed to Hyrum Smith.

Sarah Ann Whitney Kimball

June 19

36

36

Sealed to Joseph Smith on July 27, 1842.

Joseph B. Noble

June 26

38-39

38-39

Learned about plural marriage from Joseph Smith.

Thomas Grover

July 6

42

42

Discussion of the celestial marriage revelation and the Nauvoo High Council.

Thomas Grover

July 6

44

44

Sealed to two plural wives in August 1843 by Hyrum Smith.

Mary Ann Angell Young

July 10

46

46

Sealed to Brigham Young by Hyrum Smith [date blank].

Lucy Ann Decker Young

July 10

48

48

Sealed to Brigham Young by Joseph Smith on June 14, 1842.

Augusta Adams Young

July 12

50

50

Sealed to Brigham Young by Joseph Smith on November 2, 1843.

Augusta Adams Young

July 12

52

52

Witness to the sealing of Fanny Murray and Brigham Young.

Charles C. Rich

July 12

54

54

Learned plural marriage from Hyrum Smith in May 1844.

Vienna Jacques

56

Unfinished and unsigned.

John Pack

July 22

56-57

58-59

Learned plural marriage from Hyrum Smith.

Sylvia Sessions Lyon

[blank]

60

1842

62

1843

Unsigned–level of involvement of Sylvia Sessions is unknown. Sealing dates in two books show different years.

Elizabeth Brotherton Pratt

Aug. 2

62

64

Sealed to Parley P. Pratt by Hyrum Smith on July 24, 1843.

Mary Ellen Abel Kimball

Aug. 6

64

66

Witness to Catherine Clawson’s sealing to Howard Egan.

Lucy Walker Kimball

Aug. 9

66

68

Sealed to Joseph Smith on May 1, 1843, by William Clayton.

[William Clayton’s Journal]

Aug. 9

67

69

Extract for May 1, 1843–Joseph sealed to Lucy Walker

Aug. 17

68

70

Extract for August 16, 1843–Emma threatened divorce.

Amos Fielding

Aug. 24

70

72

Learned of plural marriage from Joseph Smith in December 1843.

Elizabeth Ann Whitney

Aug. 30

72

74

Witnessed daughter Sarah Ann’s time and eternity sealing to Joseph Smith on July 27, 1842.

John Benbow

Aug. 28

74

76

Learned of plural marriage from Joseph Smith in spring/summer of 1843–Hannah Ells was a plural wife of Joseph Smith who lived with him during that time.

Nathan Tanner

Aug. 28

76

78

Learned of plural marriage from Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844.

Elvira A. Cowles Holmes

Aug. 28

78

80

Sealed to Joseph Smith on June 1, 1843.

Sarah Perry Peak Kimball

Sept. 7

80

82

Learned of plural marriage from Joseph Smith in 1842.

James Allred

Oct. 2

82

84

Celestial marriage revelation was presented to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843.

Aaron Johnson

Oct. 2

84

86

Roxsena Rachel Adams

Oct. 13

86

88

Sealed to James Adams on July 11, 1843, by Joseph Smith.

Name

Date

Book

Notes

2

page

3

page

Benjamin F. Johnson

March 4

3-9

3-9

Testimony and historical items.

Harriet Cook Young

March 4

12

12

Sealed to Brigham Young on November 2, 1843, by Joseph Smith.

March 4

14

14

Witnessed Joseph Smith’s sealing to Fanny Murray Young on November 2, 1843.

COPY. Sealed to Ezra T. Benson on November 19, 1843, by Hyrum Smith and witnessed Adeline Andrus’s sealing to Ezra T. Benson on April 27, 1844.

Orson Hyde

Sept. 15

45-46

45-46

COPY. Sealed to Martha R. Browitt in February or March of 1843 by Joseph Smith and sealed to Mary Ann Price in April of 1843 by Joseph Smith. Marinda Johnson Hyde, his legal wife, consented.

David Fullmer, Thomas Grover, Aaron Johnson, James Allred

Oct. 10

47-48

47-48

Celestial marriage revelation presented to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843.

Jacob Peart

April 23

50

50

Deceased wife was sealed to him in November 1843.

Bathsheba Smith

Nov. 19

51-54

History and recollections inscribed in this book (Book 2) on November 19, 1903. Joseph F. Smith witness. Not found in Book 4, probably because Book 4 was located in the Church Historian’s Office along with Book 3, whereas Joseph F. Smith kept Books 1 and 2 in his personal possession.

Other free affidavits have been accumulated:

Name

Date

Notes

Patty Bartlett Sessions

June 1867

Sealed to Joseph Smith March 9, 1842, by Willard Richards

Adeline Brooks Andrus Benson

Sept. 5, 1869

Sealed to Ezra T. Benson on April 27, 1844, by Hyrum Smith.

Pamelia Andrus Benson

Sept. 6, 1869

Sealed to Ezra T. Benson on November 19, 1843, by Hyrum Smith and witnessed Adeline Andrus’s sealing to Ezra T. Benson on April 27, 1844.

Gideon Carter

1903

History of the planned move to the West.

William Clayton

Nov. 11, 1871

William wrote the revelation on celestial marriage July 12, 1843. Testimony.

Feb. 16, 1874

Extensive history with names of many plural wives. It has been published numerous times.

Howard Coray

June 12, 1882

Hyrum Smith taught him and his wife and sealed them in eternal monogamy on July 22, 1843.

Josephine Fisher

Feb. 24, 1915

1915 statement quoting her mother’s deathbed statement that Josephine was the daughter of Joseph Smith.

Witnessed Lucy Walker to Joseph Smith sometime in 1843 by William Clayton.

Witnessed Emily Partridge’s sealing to Joseph Smith on May 11, 1843.

Catherine Phillips

Jan. 28, 1903

Sealed to Hyrum Smith by Joseph Smith in August of 1843.

John W. Rigdon

July 29, 1905

Lengthy statement including a discussion of Joseph Smith and Nancy Rigdon

Bathsheba Smith

Nov. 19, 1903

Recollection that Emma Smith opposed plural marriage.

Joseph Smith III

Jan. 17, 1888

1888 statement denying that his father, the Prophet, practiced polygamy.

Erastus Snow

undated

Sealed to Artemesia Bergan by Hyrum Smith on February 15, 1844

Lorenzo Snow

Aug. 28, 1869

Recollection of learning of plural marriage in 1843 from Joseph Smith

Leonard Soby

Oct. 27, 1903

Affidavit affirming that D&C 132 is the same revelation he read on August 12, 1843, as a member of the Nauvoo Stake presidency

Lucy Walker

1902

Sealed to Joseph Smith on May 1, 1843, by William Clayton

Second, in 1887, independent historian Andrew Jenson accumulated additional testimonials that were published in his “Plural Marriage” article in the Historical Record.

Source

Date

Description

page

Joseph F. Smith

May 20, 1886

Letter

219

Joseph F. Smith

Oct. 17, 1879

Letter

220-24

Joseph B. Noble

June 6, 1869

Testimony

221

Benjamin F. Johnson

March 4, 1870

Testimony

221-22

Lorenzo Snow

August 28, 1869

Testimony

222

John Benbow

August 8, 1869

Affidavit

222-23

Eliza M. Partridge

July 1, 1869

Affidavit

223

Emily Dow Partridge

May 1, 1869

Testimony

223

Emily Dow Partridge

August 1, 1885

Woman’s Exponent excerpt

223

Lovina Smith Walker

June 16, 1869

Certificate

223-24

Eliza R. Snow

October 22, 1879

Testimony

224

William Clayton

February 16, 1874

Testimony

224-26

Joseph C. Kingsbury

May 22, 1886

Testimony

226

Thomas Grover

January 10, 1885

Testimony

226-27

David Fullmer

June 15, 1869

Testimony

227

Leonard Soby

January 1886

Testimony

227-28

James S. Brooks

March 26, 1886

Letter

228

Leonard Soby

February 26, 1886

Letter

228

Howard Coray

June 12, 1882

Testimony

228-29

Mercy R. Thompson

January 31, 1886

Testimony

229

Mercy R. Thompson

September 5, 1883

Letter

229

Lucy Walker Kimball

Undated

Letter

230

Orson Pratt

September 12, 1878

Testimony

230

Lyman O. Littlefield

June 18, 1883

Millennial Star excerpt

230

Allen J. Stout

January 20, 1885

Deseret Evening News excerpt

230-31

S. A. Woolley

Undated

Testimony

231-32

Erastus Snow

Undated

Testimony

232

Sarah M. Kimball

Undated

Testimony

232

Elder Thomas Grover

June 11, 1883

Statement

232

Joseph B. Noble

June 11, 1883

Statement

232-33

John Taylor

June 11, 1883

Statement

233

George Q. Cannon

June 11, 1883

Statement

233

List of Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives

233-34

Olive Grey Frost

Biographical sketch

234-35

Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer

Biographical sketch

235-36

Lucy Walker Kimball

Biographical sketch

236

Eliza M. Partridge Lyman

Biographical sketch

236-37

Joseph Bates Noble

Biographical sketch

237-40

Emily Dow Partridge Young

Biographical sketch

240

Jenson’s private collection at the Church History Library also contains many important documents.

In 1892, the RLDS Church sued the Church of Christ Temple Lot (Hedrikites) and dozens of witnesses were called.

The RLDS Old Rock Church is on the left and the Church of Christ Temple Lot building (small white structure) on the right.

Many of the witnesses testified of Nauvoo polygamy including three of Joseph Smith’s own wives who acknowledged sexual relations with him as his plural wives.

Temple Lot Transcript Directory Parts 1 and 2

Pages

Witness

Identity

Polygamy mentioned?

1-46

Introduction

Yes

1-7

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop of RLDS Church

7-47

James Whitehead

Joseph Smith’s secretary, later RLDS member

Yes

48-165

Joseph Smith III

President of the RLDS Church

Yes

166-219

William B. Smith

Joseph Smith’s brother

Yes

219-21

J. W. Brackenbury

Nauvoo resident, 1840-46

222-346

W. W. Blair

Editor of the Saints’ Herald

347-59

Henry A. Stebbins

RLDS Church Secretary and Recorder

359-62

Robert Weston

Independence resident

362-63

Isaac N. Rogers

Independence resident

363-66

William McCoy

Independence resident

366-67

Thomas Halley

Independence resident

367-69

Clarence St. Clair

Independence resident

369-73

Emily D. P. Young

Daughter of LDS Church bishop Edward Partridge and plural wife of Joseph Smith

Yes

374-92

John H. Carter

resident of Kirtland, Far West, and Nauvoo

Yes

392-413

John Taylor

Jackson County and Nauvoo resident

Yes

413-22

Charles Johnson

Ray County, Missouri, resident

422-502

E. C. Briggs

1842 convert; later affiliated with RLDS Church

Yes

503-48

Hyrum Rathbun

1831 Missouri resident

549-51

John W. Brackenbury

Jackson County resident

552-54

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop RLDS Church

555-56

W. R. Hall

Independence deed recorder

556-63

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop, RLDS Church

563-67

W. R. Hall

Independence deed recorder

567-72

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop, RLDS Church

572-73

W. R. Hall

Independence deed recorder

573-77

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop, RLDS Church

577-93

Robert Weston

Independence resident

593-616

John H. Thomas

Independence resident

Yes

617-29

Charles R. Ross

Caldwell County resident

629-47

Mary Eaton

Missouri and Nauvoo resident

Yes

647-59

John T. Crisp

Independence resident

Yes

659-74

Martha A. Hall

Independence resident

674-88

Jacob Greg

Independence resident

688-96

William Stewart

Independence resident

Temple Lot Transcript Directory Parts 3 and 4

Pages

Witness

Identity

Polygamy mentioned?

1-92

Wilford Woodruff

LDS Church President

Yes

92-108

Malissa Lott Willes

Plural wife of Joseph Smith

Yes

108-47

Lorenzo Snow

LDS Apostle

Yes

147-77

Lyman O. Littlefield

LDS Nauvoo resident

Yes

177-236

Joseph C. Kingsbury

Scribe of copy of revelation on celestial marriage

Yes

237-90

Mercy Rachel Fielding Thompson

Plural wife of Hyrum Smith

Yes

291-348

Bathsheba W. Smith

Wife of Apostle George A. Smith

Yes

349-92

Emily D. P. Young

Plural wife of Joseph Smith and daughter of Bishop Partridge

Yes

392-448

Joseph B. Noble

Performed first Nauvoo plural marriage ceremony

Yes

448-95

Lucy Walker Kimball

Plural wife of Joseph Smith

Yes

495-527

Mary Ann Frost West

Plural wife of William Smith

Yes

527-30

Priscilla M. Staines

Plural wife of William Smith

Yes

530-63

Cyrus H. Wheelock

Nauvoo resident

Yes

564-77

Samuel W. Richards

Nauvoo resident

Yes

577-623

Jason W. Briggs

1842 LDS member joined RLDS

Yes

623-85

L. D. Hickey

James J. Strang follower

Yes

685-95

Ember Mason

Jackson County resident

695-99

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop of RLDS Church

699-707

A. H. G. Henley

Jackson County Circuit Clerk

708-16

Thomas Maxwell

Missouri resident

716-17

W. R. Hall

Independence deed recorder

717-37

Alma Owen

Hedrickite member

739-94

Richard Hill

Independence resident

794-802

William B. Wilson

Independence resident

802-07

John H. Taylor

Independence resident

807-11

E. L. Kelley

Presiding Bishop of RLDS Church

811-12

Josiah W. Swearingen

Deputy Clerk County Court

Part 4

1-35

John Hawley

Excommunicated LDS member

Yes

35-92

Williard Griffith

Nauvoo resident and RLDS member

Yes

92-119

James Whitehead

Secretary for Joseph Smith, RLDS member

Yes

119-36

C. A. Reynolds

Jackson County resident

136-79

Joseph Smith III

RLDS President

Yes

179-92

W. W. Blair

Editor of the Saints’ Herald

(See also Joseph Smith’s Polygamy volume 2, appendix C [pp. 343-68].)

Other affidavits have been found. William Clayton affirmed that he wrote the original revelation on Celestial and Plural Marriage on July 12, 1843. Joseph C. Kingbury similarly attested to making a copy in the days shortly thereafter. To dismiss these statements as cover up or babble is insufficient. Also, the revelation was read to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, according to six of the men who left their testimonials and who were present that day – James Allred, David Fullmer, Thomas Grover, Aaron Johnson , Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles. The last two apostatized over the issue but still left a record saying the revelation was read by Hyrum to them on that date.

Present

Left Record?

Married polygamously?

James Allred

yes

Dec. 26, 1844

Samuel Bent

Jan. 14, 1846

Alpheus Cutler

Jan. 14, 1846

David Fullmer

yes

Jan. 19, 1846

Thomas Grover

yes

Dec 17, 1844

George W. Harris

William Huntington

Feb. 5, 1843

Aaron Johnson

yes

Jan. 15, 1846

Newel Knight

[died Jan. 11, 1847]

Henry G. Sherwood

Jan. 21, 1846

Leonard Soby

yes

Apostatized

Lewis D. Wilson

Feb. 3, 1846

Charles C. Rich

Jan. 6, 1845

Austin Cowles

yes

Apostatized

William Marks

Apostatized

Hosea Stout

April 20, 1845

Hyrum Smith

August 11, 1843

Numerous other accounts from men and women who saw and read the revelation are available. See volume 2 chapter 28.

I am happy to provide transcripts of any of these statements and affidavits to Mr. Waterson if he were interested in reviewing them.

Most authors who discuss Joseph Smith’s plural marriages ignore his teachings on the subject, suspecting that the real reason was LIBIDO so there is no reason to worry about his marriage theology. The problem with that approach is that it treats the Nauvoo polygamists and other Church members as gullible dupes. They weren’t. They were just as skeptical as you and me and they entered plural marriages because they believed the Prophet’s teachings concerning it.

Joseph Smith gave three reasons for plural marriage. The first was the need to restore Old Testament polygamy as a part of the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21. The necessity to restore this ancient marital order was apparently the only justification given in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s, when Joseph married Fanny Alger. Benjamin F. Johnson recalled in 1903: “In 1835 at Kirtland I learned from my Sisters Husband, Lyman R. Shirman, who was close to the Prophet, and Received it from him. That the ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.” A few years later in 1841, Joseph Smith even attempted to broach the topic publicly. Helen Mar Kimball remembered: “He [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.” This need for a restoration is mentioned in section 132: “I am the Lord thy God. . . . I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things” (v. 40; see also 45).

It might be argued that this was the only reason Joseph Smith ever needed to give. He simply had to say, “Old Testament patriarchs practiced polygamy and I’m restoring it.” There was no need for a complicated and detailed theology of celestial and eternal marriage. Authors like Fawn Brodie who affirm that such was needed to assuage Joseph’s conscience simply do not understand the evidences.

The second reason given by Joseph Smith was that through plural marriage additional devout families would be created to receive noble pre-mortal spirits who would be born into them. Nauvoo Latter-day Saint Charles Lambert quoted the Prophet discussing “thousands of spirits that have been waiting to come forth in this day and generation. Their proper channel is through the priesthood, a way has to be provided.” Helen Mar Kimball agreed that Joseph taught of “thousands of spirits, yet unborn, who were anxiously waiting for the privilege of coming down to take tabernacles of flesh.” These recollections from the 1880s could have been influenced by later teachings. However, this rationale is also explicated in the revelation on celestial marriage: “they [plural wives] are given unto him [their husband] to multiply and replenish the earth” (D&C 132:63).

Joseph Smith described the third reason in the July 12, 1843 revelation on eternal and plural marriage (now D&C 132):

Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. (D&C 132:15-17.)

Verses 61-63 also specify that a plurality of husbands is adultery and a plurality of wives is acceptable and occurs “for their [the plural wives] exaltation in the eternal worlds.” The Prophet also explained: “Those who keep no eternal Law in this life or make no eternal contract are single & alone in the eternal world” (see also D&C 131:1-4).

While the first two reasons, the need for a “restitution of all things” and “to multiply and replenish the earth,” are significant, the third reason is vastly more important because it deals with eternity. As described, worthy women without a sealed husband would live “separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity” (D&C 132:16), which is damnation in the context of D&C 132 (see vv. 4 and 6). The eternal significance of the principle of a plurality of wives is that all worthy women are able to be sealed to an eternal husband prior to the final judgment. Plural marriage allows eternal marriage for all worthy individuals and eternal marriage was Joseph Smith’s zenith doctrine.

Mr. Waterman may wish to excuse this mountain of evidence as cover up or something similar, but for most observers, it is too much and too consistent dismiss. If he would like, I would give him a set of my volumes for him to peruse (free of charge) and perhaps we could afterwards discuss his thoughts or concerns.

I believe when all of the evidence on plural marriage is made available, Joseph does just fine. The scary thing about Joseph Smith’s polygamy is not Joseph Smith, not his actions and teaching. The scary thing about Joseph Smith’s polygamy is polygamy, because he lived it and established it among the Latter-day Saints.

Brian C. Hales is a Utah-based anesthesiologist and author. Perhaps his most prominent work, thus far, is the three-volume series, Joseph Smith's Polygamy: History and Theology, published by Kofford Books. He received his medical degree from the University of Utah and did his residency at the University of Kansas Medical Center.
Dr. Hales served a mission for the church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and has been a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir .
His other books include: Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto, The Priesthood of Modern Polygamy: An LDS Perspective (with J. Max Anderson), The Doctrines of Mormon Fundamentalism (with J. Max Anderson), Is Fundamentalism Fundamental?, Light: The Physical and Spiritual Nature of Light, The Veil, and Trials: Understanding and Overcoming. He also operates a web site at mormonfundamentalism.com.

I don’t need to have it proven to me whether Joseph Smith did or did not ‘live’ polygamy. It was a terrible mistake. And, yes, prophets are mortals, and they can make mistakes. Whether Joseph “did” it or not, it was a heartbreaking error.

After those tables and tables, where is the dna evidence for the children? Brother Waterman very kindly (without arrogance) mentioned that Brother Hales might have found and produced that evidence.

If President Hinckley was correct or speaking according to the Spirit, then those before him who taught it were wrong–

If President Hinckley was incorrect to say that, then where is continuing revelation.

It becomes, at some point, a matter for personal revelation. I don’t intend to persecute those who practice polygamy now; I believe it should be decriminalized, but I don’t believe it is or ever was a “spiritual truth”–

and where was the review? Brother Waterman’s chief ‘contention’ was to surmise that there really is no reason for *him* to continue to believe in polygamy.

I read his blog essay twice, several months apart–

and I had some of the same concerns. Why are *we* LDS continuing to hold polygamy up as a ‘sacred cow’?

We don’t live it. It’s illegal. But, beyond that, it has been declared not to be doctrine by a recent prophet.

You didn’t address that.

Are you seeking to see it restored as a spiritual requirement for faithful LDS?

Brother Waterman did, cautiously, quote the Prices. But what I gathered as I read it is that LDS men secretly believe they will be polygamists someday, and LDS women secretly fear that they will need to live it someday–

and that spiritual assumption causes a lot of heartache. It’s not necessary.

Your reams and reams of evidence (but I still didn’t see the DNA evidence for the children of Joseph’s “other wives”) doesn’t address the ubiquitous belief that polygamy is still an eternal principle or doctrine.

I realize that President Hinckley is no longer living, but you’re welcome to take him on.

Just don’t call him Mr. Hinckley.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

According to the three reasons given (for plural marriage), why would it be necessary (for Joseph Smith) to ‘marry’ other men’s wives? (According to scholars, at least 13 of his wives were already married to other faithful mormon men)

Good comment on the “Mr.” vs. “Bro.” I don’t know Brother Waterman and didn’t want to be presumptuous. I will need to ask his pardon.

The question arises as to why women would be sealed to Joseph Smith instead of their legal spouses? In several cases, the husbands were ineligible because they were not active Mormons. However, some of the women were married to devout Latter-day Saints. Evidence indicates that in each case, the woman made the decision. Lucy Walker remembered the Prophet’s counsel: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” In other words, the women chose Joseph to be their eternal husband. The lack of clarifying documents creates an incomplete picture that seems strange in several respects. However, nothing currently available supports that Joseph behaved hypocritically or committed transgression. None of the participants, the men or women who knew the details of what was going on, ever complained about Joseph Smith allowing these sealings. In Joseph Smith’s teachings, no woman could have two husbands at the same time, which would be adultery. However, some apparently chose someone else to be sealed to for the next life.

This is a complete absurd, the words of Jesus are: luke 20 “34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection”
Please note the answer of Jesus does not refer to the woman or the 7 husbands, (they were hypothetical any way) it refer to all of whom will reach the kingdom of heaven.
I have also been a Mormon all my life and though carefully this issues, polygamy is just an extension of eternal marriage, both not valid in words of Jesus.
Who you will believe? Jesus or Joseph.?

I like Rock Waterman’s writing but I definitely put him into the Prophet Joseph Worshipper crowd, and this informs his decision to choose to believe that Joseph didn’t practise polygamy and to be subject to confirmation bias in the research he looks at.

More power to him, I must say that I’m slightly partial to his point of view (i.e. the church as Joseph restored it was Gods church but it’s now in somewhat of a state of apostasy) because it makes a lot of sense.

At the end of the day however I probably fit better into another camp, the one that says the church is and has always been rife with imperfections and philosophies of men but still remains a wonderful vehicle in which to approach the divine.

Brian,
Thank you for that thoughtful and even-handed response to my blog post. There have been times when I’ve been drawn into Facebook arguments by those whose very worldview seems threatened simply by questioning the conventional wisdom. I appreciate your acknowledging that this topic is problematic, even if you and I do come down on separate sides of the issue.

I am not a scholar, just a guy who reads a lot, and it seems to me that given Joseph Smith’s frequent and adamant denials regarding the practice, combined with the obvious doctoring of Joseph Smith’s words in the DHC by Willard Richards under the direction of Brigham Young, sufficient cause exists to question, and investigate.

I don’t wish to take you on point by point here. For one thing, I’m under deadline to get something else in print, and for another, I’ve been considering re-addressing this whole Joseph Smith and Polygamy thing in a future post. Your kind offer to sen me your books is gratefully accepted, and in a few months I’ll post something about this. From what I have already heard of your books, they are very thorough, and they come highly recommended.

I can’t resist addressing a few quick points you bring up in your piece above. The letter to Nancy Rigdon, purportedly from Joseph Smith, was rejected by Nancy, who did not believe it was from Joseph. Sidney Rigdon also believed it was a fraud. Joseph Smith himself made affidavit denying authorship. And yet it still found its way into the official history of the church, with a byline by Joseph Smith. We should be wary of accepting these things at face value. Too much of our history has been falsified.

You bring up the Temple Lot Case. The ins and outs of that controversy are complicated, but in a nutshell it came down to a question of which of the Mormon denominations could lay claim to having descended from its founder, Joseph Smith. A reading of that case could forever effect the reader’s view of our claim to authority. The “wives” brought out to testify were a disaster. So was the testimony of the leaders. In the words of the presiding judge, it was clear to him that “Brigham Young was a bold and bald usurper.” It was not our finest hour. Brigham Young’s widely accepted declaration (by the Utah Saints) that “Joseph Smith told me this” did not fly in an open court of law.

The William Clayton Diaries would certainly move me to reconsider my view, if I could ever see the originals. Likewise the minutes of the Nauvoo High Council. If there is anything we learn from Daymon Smith’s remarkable new book “A Cultural History of the Book of Mormon,” it is that the early Saints did not normally write in their diaries daily, but that they often recorded their recollections years and sometimes decades after the event. As Daymon shows, our histories were often fudged in order to fit with the traditions that grew up around them.

I agree with Robert Fields that we must be allowed to see and examine the original Clayton diaries. I don’t know where they are; I’m guessing in the church archives. Presumably there are three diaries. Where are the parts on polygamy contained within? are they added at the end, or are they somewhere in the middle where they should be to line up with the dates? Fields also feels the paper and ink should be tested by experts to line up with the era they were purportedly written, and handwriting analysis included. In spite of what some folks believe about me, I’m not married to any historical view. I am capable of changing my mind. It would certainly help to see SOMETHING spoken or written by Joseph Smith in his lifetime to confirm the history that was later built up around this topic. But all we get from Joseph is deny, deny, deny.

When Joseph Smith’s sons came to Utah, they spoke to packed chapels of Saints ready to accept them as their rightful leaders, as they had been expecting one of Joseph’s sons to assume the leadership. But Joseph and David castigated the Saints for apostatizing from their father’s teachings. This threw the current hierarchy into a panic. The wives of the apostles were recruited to announced they had formerly been sealed to Joseph, documents were forged, and false testimonies circulated, all in an effort to halt any doubts that Brigham and his successors were the rightful leaders and that poor young Joseph and David Smith had been deceived by their mother. The now debunked story of Brigham Young’s visage transformed into Joseph Smith took off during that time. Since no dove had descended from heaven and alighted upon Brigham’s shoulder, that story was the next best thing.

I don’t know the truth about our history. But I think it’s a good idea to question everything, given the large number of faith promoting myths that have grown up in this church over time. What I would really like to see from you, Brian, is a point by point refutation of the research provided in the Price’s books. Usually I just hear of them dismissed. If their research is faulty, show me where.

Thank you again for your kind response, Brian. I look forward to learning more from you.

Ultimately the issue is really easy for me….there is a prophet, seer, and revelator at the top of the church. They do not argue with the position that Joseph practiced polygamy or polyandry. So if god hasn’t come out and told the prophets that Joseph wasn’t polygamous then I have to assume that he in fact was.

Garrett:
Ultimately the issue is really easy for me….there is a prophet, seer, and revelator at the top of the church.They do not argue with the position that Joseph practiced polygamy or polyandry. So if god hasn’t come out and told the prophets that Joseph wasn’t polygamous then I have to assume that he in fact was.

The Brethren are in a tight place on this matter, Garrett. They can’t possibly exonerate Joseph from plural marriage, because to do so would be to expose Brigham as a usurper. Without the ability to trace their lines of authority THROUGH Brigham and back to Joseph Smith, their own authority comes into question.

So, as much as the leaders today would like polygamy to just go away, they HAVE to “admit” it was of divine origin, and approved by Joseph Smith. Why do you think you were NEVER taught about the many vigorous denials Joseph preached on the topic?

Of course, you also have to assume none of the current leadership have spent that any time investigating the claims that Joseph opposed polygamy. They know little more about the topic than the average member, so of course they believe section 132 was came from Joseph.

I think Brother Brigham was just trying to survive. Just because he did some tough maneuvers, does not mean he was not a Prophet of God. He was.

Having read The Holy Bible a number of times (6), I have seen many Bible leaders do what they had to do.

If Brother Joseph was only married to Emma, then the Clayton and Noble journals have to have been altered; it is one way or the other. Given that….they are under lock and key……dah….the answer is right there.

Sad; today I spoke with a fine educated man who thinks Brother Joseph had more than one wife because of the Clayton Journals.

It was all about the money, and keeping power. And also keeping the Church together. It is so obvious that the affidavits are bogus; how does an old man in 1902 remember “word for word” a conversation more than 50 years earlier?

Oh…can you tell me what your Mother said to you word for word 20 years ago on September 15th? Of course not; bogus claims. They were just making it up to protect their way of life, and money/property/social standing.

Section 132 was not developed by Brother Joseph; it was “found” in 1852; in a drawer. Then the kicker is, when they finally place in the D&C in 1876, they remove the original Section 101, which was endorsed by Brother Joseph which said…..which said….which said…he was against polygamy.

What is sad is that by claiming Brother Joseph chased little 13 and 14 year old girls and was married to married women, it drives people out of the Church, and causes others not to look into it and read The Book of Mormon.

I have had two strong Spiritual Witnesses that Brother Joseph did not practice polygamy. So I have to be true to the Witness I have received.

I just finished the book, “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy”, and found it very logical and thought provoking. It leaves me with this conclusion; one either has to believe Joseph Smith lied about the whole issue most of his life, which brings into doubt all his other revelations, or Brigham was a false prophet.
I lean towards the latter, but then what does that say about the church today and the purported infallibility of its leaders?
Looking back, two of the biggest issues the modern LDS church has faced have been over two policies or doctrines; polygamy and the supposed inferiority of blacks. And where did the church get those two doctrines? In terms of polygamy it hasn’t been established conclusively whether it was Joseph Smith or just Brigham Young. If it was revelation received by Joseph Smith and practiced by him, then the man was a bald-faced liar. And I don’t accept the word play between plural celestial marriage and spiritual wifery as justification for his repeated denials. He never ran from a fight or failed to say what he believed and then stand behind it. I believe based on what I have come across in my studies Brigham Young came up with it, instituted it and practiced it all on his own and the church has been paying for it and trying to justify it ever since.
We are supposed to follow Christ and his gospel and teachings and not put our whole faith and trust in men who are ALL fallible. Brigham Young did a lot of good things for the church but that doesn’t mean everything he did was right. The BOM, which was written for us and is the foundation of the revealed gospel CLEARLY teaches polygamy is a sin and not a righteous practice.
And I have always thought polygamy was a stupid and unfair practice to all parties involved and only benefiting the men who get to sleep around and have sex with multiple partners “legally”. Men always start it and I see no benefit to the women or the children produced from it. I think the idea of polygamy in the next life is even more ludicrous and ridiculous. What woman upon becoming a god would agree to such an arrangement? What is in it for her? Put the situation in reverse and see how many men would be for that. My guess is pretty much none.
I trust Joseph Smith far more than any prophet or “president” since and to me that only makes sense as he did far more than any of the rest combined and died for his beliefs. The church could have done without any one of the ‘prophets’ since and be relatively unchanged. Not so without Joseph. And how many of them claimed to have seen God or Jesus and publicly proclaimed it? Only a couple. How can you be a witness to all the world of Christ if you never even saw or spoke to Him? The Nephite prophets saw him.
I never knew about the many times Joseph preached publicly against polygamy and defended himself legally from those same accusations made against him until I read this book and that the church under Brigham Young changed the D&C regarding marriage, either(that really bothers me). From my reading of the Bible it seems all the Old Testament kings who had multiple wives and or concubines(and don’t forget king noah and his priests) met a bad end so it doesn’t seem like it was a blessing. David obviously was a satyr and couldn’t be satisfied no matter how many different women he had sex with. Brigham probably was the same.
I think the two worst doctrines in church history seem to have come from Brigham Young. Polygamy and the supposed inferiority of blacks.
Brigham Young was a wrong about blacks and was just a racist and I can prove it using logic and church doctrine which nobody in the church disputes. Here is my proof:
It is completely irrational to say blacks are inferior and not worthy of holding the priesthood on one hand and then to TEACH that ALL black children(meaning tens of milllions, more than all current church members), who died before the age of 8, will go straight to the top of the celestial kingdom. That makes no sense at all. And more black children under the age of eight have died than white children.
It seems most of the “prophets” since Brigham have been trying to explain HIS teachings and deal with the fallout ever since. And in order to do that they decided they had to throw Joseph Smith under the bus on the polygamy issue. But Joseph Smith NEVER taught blacks were inferior like Brigham did and in fact he conferred the priesthood on at least two black men I have read about. So again we have a real problem between the two. More evidence to me Joseph Smith wasn’t a polygamist and Brigham Young WAS a racist and a libertine. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and Brigham Young was just the president of the church who took over in his place. I bet if Hiram hadn’t of also been murdered Brigham would have got excommunicated for practicing polygamy. And the history of the church would be far different than it is today.

I think it is great that Greg Scott is investigating this topic and as I’ve said, Richard and Pamela Price are generally very good researchers.

However, if their conclusions are reliable, they should endure scrutiny and should be consistent with other credible evidences dealing with the topic.

I would encourage Mr. Scott to withhold judgement on Joseph and Brigham (regarding plural marriage) until he has reviewed all the evidence. Perhaps he could check out my three volumes from the library or borrow them from a friend. There are so many documents that Richard and Pamela ignore or dismiss, but that are just as reliable as the documents they quote.

If Joseph was a true prophet, which is my conviction, it is worth the effort.

Take Care,

Brian Hales

The truth is going to be more obvious after inspecting all known documentation. Limiting the manuscripts that we review exposes us to being deceived.

The overall problem documenting Joseph Smith’s plural marriages stems from the fact that there are only two known contemporaneous documents dealing with the subject, the Revelation on Celestial and Plural Marriage (now LDS D&C 132) and a few entries in the journal of William Clayton.

I am very familiar with the work of the late Richard Price (passed away 1 Jan 2014) and his wife Pamela. I am also very familiar with the work of Rock Waterman.
I have to say that I believe they are much nearer to the truth than many “orthodox” commentators such as yourself on this issue. The weakness in your argument is your admission (and this is very significant) that there is very little, if any, credible contemporary evidence of Joseph’s involvement in (physical) plural marriage. That, coupled with Joseph’s strenuous public denials, is a major blow to the official party line.
Later non-contemporaneous sources are problematic for many and varied reasons which I do not have time to detail here, but which I plan to in the future. I am currently gathering evidence to write a book; the first (I believe) to question the party line and present the Saints with another scenario more consistent with the evidence.

You are correct that “Later non-contemporaneous sources are problematic,” but when we have hundreds of recollections telling the same story including both believers and unbelievers, apologists and antagonists, then it becomes more difficult to say that something did not happen. Besides the Utah Church members recollections, we have those from men like William Law who is very credible on the topic.

We should also not discount the entries in William Clayton’s journal, which were recorded contemporaneously and are consistent with later accounts. The NAUVOO EXPOSITOR published June 7th, 1844 is also good evidence.

But there are several documents that indicate that Joseph Smith III also knew and believed. Take for example his letter to RLDS member E. C. Brand, who lived in Provo, Utah asking him to make some inquiries in order to create a list of his father’s plural wives. Brand wrote back providing twenty names (see chapter thirty-two). In reply to that letter and list, the Reorganized Church President wrote on January 26, 1894 asking for additional “proof,” but the tenor of his response seems to reflect a belief that his father was indeed a polygamist:

Yours from Provo, of Jan 6 was received; and I have been getting used to contemplating my respective step-mothers, and possible half brothers & sisters by the same, before attempting a reply – as if it needed one… I asked you to look after the “limbs of the” family tree, I wanted to see if they were akin to the “root.”… Now you will discover that while you have furnished me names; I would like particulars and proofs. And if you find any more mothers, or aunts, and can do so just get proofs, proofs, anything that is offered. I will be mighty easy to [indecipherable] only I want the proofs they offer.

Here Joseph Smith III asks Brand to help find “limbs of the family tree” by inquiring about his father’s plural wives.

In 1882, William B. Smith, former Church Patriarch who was excommunicated in 1845, contemplated writing a biography of his brother, the Prophet. His nephew, RLDS President Joseph Smith III wrote to him concerning it:

In regard to the matter of your Biography &c… Father’s history is not yet written for the world, and ought to be written by a friend, of course…
I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum.
… if you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything [contrasting] to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.

Joseph Smith III encourages his uncle to “fail to remember” anything that might have reinforced “the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy.” William was also a Nauvoo polygamist.

During the earliest years following the 1860 establishment of the Reorganized Church, several RLDS leaders, such as William Marks, acknowledged that Joseph Smith was initially involved with polygamy. The first volume of their official publication, The True Latter Day Saint Herald, claimed that Joseph Smith gave several members a false revelation at their request—a revelation that authorized the practice of plural marriage. This act resulted in the Prophet being punished by death. According to these authors, Joseph Smith “abhorred and repented of this iniquity before his death.”

When all sides agree something happened and we see above the Utah Church, the anti-Mormons, and even Joseph Smith III, all seem to affirm that Joseph Smith Jr. introduced plural marriage in Nauvoo, then it is difficult to dismiss.

Hi Brian. You and I have spoken via e-mail several months ago. I would bring up another point that I never see addressed, the fact that nowhere in scriptures was a man ever told by the Lord to live polygamy. I have been a student of ancient history. I have my degree in history with a focus on Ancient History. As far as I can tell it was a social tradition, but certainly not one that was entered into with God's command. If you recall, the Lord didn't command Abraham to live polygamy. He commanded Abraham to listen to his wife, who wanted to have children through the only means she knew how, an ancient attempt at surrogate parenthood. Then we have Jacob, who never intended to live polygamy. He only wanted one wife, Rachel. Nor was he ever commanded to live polygamy. He was handed a difficult situation created by his wicked father-in-law. Where was the commandment? Joseph Smith called it the "Blessing of Jacob"… and yet to Jacob, it wasn't a blessing, at least initially. It was a curse as there was such jealousy and in-fighting among his family. It is disingenuous to talk about the "restoration" of all things when we only bring back the multiple sex-partner/children bearers, but we don't bring back such things as women prophets. All that being true, I would also point out Genesis, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his WIFE, and the TWO shall become one flesh." Emphasis is mine. There is no reference to a plurality of wives in the original context of "marriage".

I have a lot of questions about the so called "proof" that proves JS was polygamist.
Where is the documentation that existed before Joseph's death and that came directly from JS himself? Letters can be forged. I want to see public documentation from JS. Is Heresay proof especially if it comes from people who loved and practiced polygamy via chochrainism?
Why would J.S practice polygamy secretly while Brigaham Young practiced it openly?. How can Peoples journals count as proof when they are interpretations of what they believe Or think they observe?
Can't mass amounts of people lie?
Can't people lie in affidavits?
Can't a church make false records to prove their claim?
Can't satan himself influence a church that has truth restored, to deny it and look beyond the mark?
Wouldn't that be the best way to infiltrate? I know that's what I would do if I were Satan and I would get masses of people to believe a lie and spread a lie from generation to generation and disguise it as truth and cause massive cognitive disonence! I would create a means for sexual abuse. I would cause people to embrace God and mingle false traditions, and make them feel like they are a special people! Then I would cause people to leave that special people and God altogether and become atheist ! What a cunning Plan. Seems to be working well! Oh you little devil.

disagree. i thought brother waterman’s blog was cynical and tinged with smugness. “i know you messed up, even if you won’t admit it, but don’t worry, i’m still a member.” there is nothing noble about cynicism, even if its paraded in a lighthearted manner. i agree with you, whether joseph smith did or did not have many wives is irrelevant, the first principle of the gospel is FAITH, not how many wives joseph may or may not of had. brother waterman’s blog seems to have replace faith with judgement and a little arrogance. “i’ve read some ‘history’ and so i know what really happened.” well, as cited here and many other places history is disputed and, as hugh nibley warns, “falls apart in your hands when you try to beat the church with it.” Faith, i believe, is giving our leaders and our church the benefit of the doubt. obviously the church is imperfect, obviously prophets have weaknesses, some glaring, but why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

I think there is one thing you failed to mention is,”Emma Smith is a liar.” Oh you can’t say that anymore, so it indicates to me that your voice has been tempered by the “mormon man.” I don’t believe she is a liar. When it comes right down to it you either have to believe Brigham or Emma have their pants on fire. Brigham ruled with an iron fist, and I believe if he needed an army of liars he could get them. If all of the possible statements about his polygamy that could be proven by DNA were shown to be from liars, why would it be hard to believe that all of them were liars. You would have included the liars testimonies in the list before DNA. Which makes me think you are a shill. The fact that I had never heard about the envolvement of Brigham and the Chocrinites before I read Rocks article indicates to me there has some history editing been done by the church. I feel it is too close to say either way, but I have a warning to you. When you meet Joseph on the other side are you 100% sure he won’t be pissed off at you for you speaking ill of him. I don’t know if you remember that there was a prophecy about good and ill spoken of Joseph. It seems to me that the worst things said about Joseph are in agreement by both mormons and anti-mormons. Men are week and I do believe polygamy is 100% a natural man thing associated mostly with religionist trap of being holier than thou. I believe that there is way to many people with holier than thou attitudes in the church, and those who fly the banner of polygamy are usually the worst. I urge everyone to distance themselves from this doctrine. It is poison that is still killing the church and is preventing the church from reaching it’s potential. There are big lies in the world are you taking part of one of the biggest lies.

The Barker Brothers’ Projects

These videos were created for Latter-day Saint parents and allies to voice their love for their LGBT brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. They want to give a message of comfort and support to other parents who are navigating the difficult conflicts that can arise in families around this issue.

“Cogito!” (“I think!”) follows the intellectual adventures of a recovering academic outside the walls of academia.

Quote of the Month

"It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt." (Fyodor Dostoevsky)